memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Earth-Romulan War/archive
Do we already have a page about the theory that ENT is set in a different timeline, which began with the time-incursion of Final Frontier? If we do, we should probably mention it among the Italic paragraph... Redge 14:50, 5 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Theories about ENT being set in a different timeline are pure fan speculation based on personal dislikes at the moment (and will probably stay that way). I don't think it should be included. Furthermore, the article contains some speculation at the moment - this speculation is what was contradicted by ENT. I will rewrite it a bit. -- Cid Highwind 16:50, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::The fact that "nuclear weapons" were used seems quite unlikely, plus it's hard to believe the Romulans don't even have proper viewscreen technology by the time. But Enterprise doesn't necessarily have to violate established canon, as the Romulan war is at least a couple of years away, and the Romulans haven't been mentioned very often on the entire show... -- Ottens :::I changed "nuclear" to "atomic", to quote Spock. "Atomic weapons" do not necessarily have to be based on nuclear fission. Davok 21:09, 23 Oct 2004 (CEST) ::: what does make you think that "Romulans don't even have proper viewscreen technology" ? Perharps they simply didn't want to use it with human! --rami 152.163.100.9 additions In case anyone wants to know alll that info that User: 152.163.100.9 added came from User:Ottens's website. I've been on the site myself numerous times and it's really interesting. -- Krevaner 19:28, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT) :Thanks for the compliment. ;) The reason why its on my site and not included at MA is because the text is based upon canon, but has non-canon speculation along with it.. These pages are not fully 100% canon and should therefore not be included at MA. ~ Ottens (on a public computer now, and too lazy to log in) ::I thought it looked familiar! (I agree that Ottens has some interesting stuff on his page, but that it doesn't belong here at MA.) --Josiah Rowe 11:23, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT) Unseen 22nd Century Romulans The remote-controlled Romulan ships seen in "Babel One", "United", and "The Aenar" offer one possible explanation as to how Earth (and possibly the Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites) could have fought a war with the Romulans and never have seen their faces. Almost from the beginning (but especially on TNG), the Romulans have had a repuation for being secretive. Plus, given the fact that they're related to Vulcans, they might have feared their enemies being able to developing some sort of biological-based weapon against them based on their similar physiology. Besides which, they might have thought perhaps keeping their appearance a secret might have a psychological advantage. upcoming feature film In my opinion (that's why its in discussion) the Earth Romulan War- or lack thereof- is what's wrong with Star Trek of late, epically Enterprise. All the canon stuff from before is gone, and they have to just ruin everything. I don't know if we should consider anything that happens in Enterprise cannon, just because it is so deviant from every other timeline in the Star Trek Universe. The work done by Masao Okazaki and Bernd Schneider presents a wonderful picture of the Earth-Romulan War that far exceeds what is presented in Enterprise in terms of consistency, imagination and excitement, and should be embraced better by those who do Star Trek in my opinion. I think that it would be a mistake on the part of Star Trek to ignore the Earth-Romulan war, as it is the centrepiece of Twenty-Second Century Star Trek. :Now, see, this is what I really hate... people are just too lazy to try and figure out possible ways to explain apparent continuity errors -- rather than keep an open mind, they instead just go right to complaining or dismissing an episode or show entirely. With that said, I have two things to say in regards to MA policy: Enterprise, regardless of what non-fans may say, is considered canon here at Memory Alpha; and second, the type of discussion the above anon initiated is not what talk pages are for -- they are to discuss the quality/substance of the article in question, not to engage in idle chit-chat and complain how they did or did not like an episode, character, show, etc. --From Andoria with Love 19:20, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) "Their Ships Are Painted Like Giant Birds of Prey!" Stiles comment on the appearance of the Romulan fleet during the war is based on first-hand account by his family members that served and unfortunately died during the Earth-Romulan War. He foolishly assumed in his frantic panic-stricken mind, that the ships probably didn't change their appearance in over 100 years. Obviously they came to find that they were different. The 23rd century Birds of Prey weren't painted like giant birds. But he wasn't too far off. There was the symbolic icon of a bird painted on the bottom of the hull. The 22nd century BoPs are not painted at all. Originally I was going to add this comment to the picture on the article showing the 22nd century BoP, but decided against it. I've instead put it in background information along with fan spectulation. AC84 from 23:30, 23 January 2006 (PST) Rework Needed There is a lot of good information in this article, but much of it is too conjectural, I believe. Take, for example, this segment: :This conflict was a contributing factor in the formation of the United Federation of Planets in 2161, and led to a more than a century of Romulan isolation from Earth and Federation affairs. (Star Trek: Generations, TOS: "Balance of Terror") "Balance of Terror" never mentions anything about the formation of the Federation, nor does Generations. I propose that the article be revamped to include only canon information in the body (including pictures), with speculation retained within the background area only.Aholland 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Unless someone objects strongly, I will see if I can redo the article to confine itself to only canon information on the war, with speculation being confined to a Background section. Aholland 11:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC) :Yes, please do. :) -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC) ::Done. I hope well. :) Aholland 16:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ::: Just one thing. The references should be inline cited and not posted at the end of the article. --Alan del Beccio 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ::::Okay - I'll do just that. Aholland 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Date of the War I believe that the date of the war should be changed back to 2166 in the article. This is the only date actually supported by the series itself. Spock clearly says the conflict took place a century before "Balance of Terror". Not "about a century", or "nearly a century" or "over a century", but "a century". This is the same man who calculates odds to the tenth or hundredth of a percent, so I think he means what he says. If there is any canon that states a different year, or if there is reason to believe that "Balance of Terror" did not take place in 2266, please let me know. Otherwise, I believe it is erroneous and misleading to a reader to give any date other than 2166. Aholland 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :It's a tough one, I'll give you that. Yes, Spock is painfully precise, but on the other hand, would Earth really engage in a war on its own without the Federation five years after its foundind? Its a tough one. Amazing that seemingly meaningless lines 40 years ago cause such chaos :) Jaz talk | novels 05:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::The newspaper clipping created for, but not seen in, Star Trek: Generations states that the Federation was founded after the Romulan war ended. I know the canonicity is extremely challenged elsewhere, but it has been used for articles on Thomas Vanderbilt and T'Jen and others.--Tim Thomason 05:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :::Actually, since we don't know the exact year(s) it was fought, stating it was fought in the "mid-22nd century" is the best way to describe it. Also, while this may not be canon, it should be noted that, according to Manny Coto, had Enterprise been given a fifth season, he would have lead the storyline into the wars. (I wish I had a link with that, but I don't at the moment; I will look around and post it here when I find it.) --From Andoria with Love 05:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :::I think this is what I was looking for, but it only states that they were going to focus more on the "Romulan threat"... it didn't exactly say they were gonna bring in the war. So, you can basically just ignore everything I said above. :P --From Andoria with Love 06:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC) So to summarize the bidding: (a) I think it equally plausible that the Earth would prosecute a war on its own if the newly formed Federation didn't want to and Earth felt under attack; (b) there are other things created for, but not included in, Trek movies as well, but that doesn't give them any standing for canon at all (e.g., Kirk's original death scene in Generations); and © as long as we can establish the year that "Balance of Terror" took place, we can easily count backwards 100 years, so we do know when it took place based on the episode itself. Unless we change the year for "Balance of Terror", or assume without any rationale that Spock left his penchant for precision in his quarters that day, Spock's line - the only line in the entire series to establish when the war took place, mind you - should be the precedence governing the question at hand. Anything else is, to my mind at least, abandoning actual dialogue that does not conflict with anything seen in the series for a desire wholly outside the series to have the war pre-date the Federation. Respect for canon would, therefore, seem to require 2166. Aholland 06:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :::Aholland has a point. To this day, we still have no canon evidence to suggest whether the wars took place before or after the founding of the Federation -- only speculation and conjecture. However, whether we list the war as occuring "in the mid-22nd century" or "circa 2266" really makes no difference as, essentially, they mean the same thing, at least to me; it's just one speculates a closer date. For the record, even Vulcans tend to round off numbers, as well (see "Awakening" - "Vulcan and Earth have been allies for a hundred years" (actually 92 years at that time)). --From Andoria with Love 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Shran. I've looked at your user page and agree with your basic philosophy of trying to rationalize inconsistencies where we need to, and your general acceptance of Trek in all its various incarnations. And if I thought there really was no difference to a reader between "mid-century" and a date 16 years after the middle of the century I'd say leave it as it stands. But I would equally object if someone wanted to say that Star Trek premiered on TV in mid-century (it was 1966), that the D-Day invasions of France took place mid-century (it was 1944), or that Nazi Germany signed a treaty with Poland pledging not to attack in in mid-century (it was 1934); each statement significantly misleads the reader. I fully agree that fudging a date a little, or setting it in an "era" is necessary sometimes to maintain a degree of consistency and continuity within and among the various Trek series and movies. But there is nothing anywhere I am aware of - and I did a lot of research on the point - that contradicts 2166, so I say why fudge the date even a little if there is no need? (And point taken that, yes, Vulcans round - and lie! - but Spock's character during that time was such that he was pleased by being more precise than anyone else around him; I see little reason to doubt his attention to detail here.) Aholland 14:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ::::The point is that people (and here that includes Vulcans) generally don't mean 100 years, 0 months, 0 days when they refer to something being "a hundred years ago". We shouldn't go and try to calculate an "exact" date from two less-than-precise statements. I'm not sure, but I think we even had a discussion and decided by consensus to use links to the decade or even century in these cases. -- Cid Highwind 16:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :::::Yeah, there is such a chat, I just don't remember which talk page it is on at the moment. Jaf 16:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Jaf Three points, and a proposal: *I really don't understand the problem or the reluctance to peg a date. There are absolutely no internal conflicts in the entire Trek saga that make circa 2166 a problem for the date of the Earth-Romulan war. None. And we have a data point that actually places it there. Isn't that what canon is all about? Taking the show, as shown, and using as much as is possible as canonical except where it conflicts with itself? *As a footnote, placing the war in 2166 would be supported by the lack of any discussion of the war in Enterprise's finale, which took place in 2161. *I agree that when most people in general conversation say "a century ago", they mean 100 years, plus or minus a bit. The amount of the "bit" depends on how detailed you like to be. However, in my experience people in general, and Spock in particular, giving a presentation to a large group would not be so cavalier about time. And it isn't just my personal experience: if you do a Google search today (as I just did) on "a century ago", you will find very few references that really mean other than 100 years from when written - plus or minus a couple of years at most if they are covering a topical era. But that's it; no 16 year or so spread that would be required for Spock to say "close enough" when telling the crew something happened a century ago, plus or minus 8 years. (In fairness, had he said "over a century ago", I'd shut up and let it pass since it would then work; but he didn't.) *In case there were questions as to when "Balance of Terror" took place in the Trek universe, all we have to do is a little math. In DS9"Trials and Tribble-ations", Dulmur and Lucsly state that it is then "one hundred and five years, one month, and twelve days" after the events of TOS: "The Trouble with Tribbles". In TNG: "The Neutral Zone", the year is explicitly stated to be 2364. The "Neutral Zone" takes place approximately 9 years before "Trials and Tribble-ations" (you can tell from the Stardates, as well as by the events shown in the intervening years). So that put "Tribbles" in the year 2268 (2364+9-105). In the "real world", if the second season of Star Trek represented one year after the first season, that would put "Balance of Terror" in either 2266 or 2267, depending on the month. Possibly as far back as 2265, but that would be pushing it. One century prior to that would be between 2165 and 2166. *I therefore propose that the article be modified to "circa 2166" as the date of the war, and an expansion of the explanation of how the year was derived. Are there any objections based on information from the shows themselves? - ::::I maintain that an offhand remark about something happening "a century" ago doesn't necessarily equal this happening exactly 100 years ago - not in everyday speech, and not even in Star Trek speech. Subtracting 100 from the apparent date of that episode might not lead to any "internal conflicts" now, but pegging an exact date where none was given still shouldn't be the way to go (We're not here to create "false canon"). On top of that, could we perhaps go back to the original quote: :::::Constructed on asteroids, they outposts monitor the Neutral Zone established by treaty after the Earth-Romulan conflict a century ago. ::::I don't want to sound pedantic - but what exactly was "a century" ago? The whole conflict? The beginning? The end? The "establishment by treaty" of a Neutral Zone after the conflict had already ended? All of it? Something completely else? I simply don't think there's any one irrefutable interpretation of that quote that pinpoints one year in the 22nd century... -- Cid Highwind 18:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :::In all fairness, Aholland suggested the date be placed as "circa 2266", or around 2266. He's not suggesting we specifiy an exact year. That said, how about instead of pegging the year(s) in which the war was fought, we just say that the wars had come to an end around 2266? This would support Spock's comments about the Neutral Zone being established "a century ago" while not pegging an exact date for the conflicts. Or we could say "mid-to-late 22nd century"... --From Andoria with Love 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :::::How many Earth years are in a Vulcan century? Jaf 20:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Jaf # Earth years have always been used in Trek unless prefaced by "one of your Earth years" or some such thing. So the question of Vulcan centuries is not at issue, I think. He also would not use a Vulcan time calculation when addressing a ship of almost all humans. # The question of what Spock refers to is a fair one. The full quote is that the Earth Outposts "monitor the Neutral Zone established by treaty after the Earth-Romulan conflict a century ago." That tells me the treaty came after the conflict (duh!), and that therefore the conflict itself was a century ago. Put into context, in 2042 people will speak of WWII being a century ago; they will likely do so in 2045. But they will stop in 2046. So the last year for the conflict would be 2166 by that logic. # Shran's thought of "mid-to-late 22nd century" might be okay if the background explains how the date was derived. But I believe that a better approach might the "the 2260s". That captures Spock's comment which indicates the war was active in 2166, does not confine the entire conflict to that single year, and does not conflict with anything in the show. How's that for a compromise?Aholland 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC) :::For the record, it has never been clarified that Earth years will always be used; we just assume this is the case in most instances (except, of course, when it comes to Tuvok's age). Anyway, stating the war took place sometime circa the 2260s is fine by me. :) --From Andoria with Love 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC) <> The Delphic Expanse ceased to exist after Enterprise disrupted the Sphere Builders. :: Thanks. Mistake on my part :) Aholland 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Massive Undiscussed Timeframe Changes *With all due respect to the user Tim Thomason, I have reverted the article's statements on dates to a state prior to his edits of 2/12. We had a very lengthy discussion (still above) on the timeframe for the Romulan War over a period of days and, as a consensus, decided to go with "circa the 2160s" based on the on-screen evidence and the fact that the date was the only one supported by on-screen continuity. Although it is certainly his right to question the conclusion, given the amount of time spent discussing it here I, for one, would appreciate a full discussion on this page prior to simply making massive edits that contradict the consensus reached. *As to his point of using a newspaper clipping in Generations: I fully support putting the information in the background section. However, since it is never seen on-screen, directly conflicts with "Balance of Terror" and the negative implications from "These are the Voyages", and was something created by unknown persons in the production art department without any script guidance, its usefulness as canon is nil. It would be like saying that the Table of Elements in "Rascals", never clearly seen on screen but available in reference works, is canon. If so we might as well throw in the towel for seriousness in the series as it has elements like "Daffyduckium", "Zeppo", "Exitstageleft", and others. These two pieces of unseen (on screen) production art carry the exact same probative weight for purposes of establishing canon. I think it a travesty to throw out a reasoned conclusion on dates that is based on screen dialogue and does not conflict with anything in the series and, instead, replace it with an errant piece of production material that was not even deemed important enough to show clearly on-screen. Aholland 14:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC) :* I understand your reversion, and I apologize for not posting here first about the clipping. I mentioned it above, but it may have been overlooked by some users (not you of course). Again, thank you for being courteous about the matter and not hateful of my ill-conceived actions. :* As for the clipping: I realize you believe Spock's statements in "Balance of Terror" (I think it could be interpreted that he was referring to the construction of the outposts after the war), and I know Balance of Terror trumps any background art every day of the week. I think that, in my mind at least, since the clipping doesn't conflict with any info, and it was background material made for the Movie by the production, (some unknown in the art department like you said), it should be fair game. Bye the way, the Table of Elements has been fully incorporated into Memory Alpha, and we have the daffyduckium, zeppo, and exitstageleft articles, as well as many other funny okudagrams which exist in the Star Trek Universe. I apologize for the "space travesty" (not as bad as the Leslie Nielsen one) but, as stated, I see it differently.--Tim Thomason 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC) ::*I'm not sure if there's really a need to apologize... I was one of those who missed Tim's comments on the news clipping that he posted above; had I seen them, it would have given me a new perspective on this. While I do agree that not every piece of background production should be made officially canon, they are considered so for the purposes of this wiki, as they are written/designed by those active in the production. ::*I personally don't think Spock's line of the outposts "monitoring the Neutral Zone established after the Earth-Romulan conflict a century ago", should be taken as exact -- otherwise, it would mean exactly a century ago to the day, which is unlikely. Also, as established, Vulcans do sometimes estimate and round their numbers. What Tim added was considered canon for this wiki, and thus didn't really need to be discussed beforehand – although an explanation mighta been helpful ;). Removing said info without discussing it first, on the other hand, is something we tend to frown upon. (*frowns*) But yeah... here at MA, production info is considered canon (as long as its stated in background that it was never seen/used), so please keep that in mind in the future. :) --From Andoria with Love 22:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC) :::*I still maintain that Spock can count, and can as easily say "over a century" if the time period is more than 100 years, or "nearly a century" if under - give or take a couple of months, I'll give you that. Requiring him to be off by at least 7% is not fair to our very precise half-Vulcan friend. :) :::*I respectfully disagree with you on canon policy. The current Memory Alpha:Canon policy says "Background information from the production staff (Rick Sternbach, Michael Okuda, etc) should either be included under the relevant background section (where available), or added to the article's Talk page where its validity can be assessed for inclusion." I'm fine including the newspaper clipping in the Background section. I'm fine discussing it here for inclusion on its merits. But I don't believe policy is to mandate inclusion. For the reasons noted above, I believe that inclusion of this particular bit of unseen material is not warranted. However I'm quite willing to engage in a discussion about it on this page if there is a cogent argument for it other than "it exists". Aholland 04:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC) ::Hmm... right you are. Again. I honestly don't know how this slipped under our noses. I sense a change in the policy coming on. :P --From Andoria with Love 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC) ::* Good points as always Aholland. I'd like to point out that the newspaper clippings "validity" has been discussed, along with other things in the Picard family album, on that page's talk page. That is why pages based on that article were created in the first place. There was much discussion and a period of time where the info was not included, but that has past. I still don't agree with you on Spock's statement, but I have nothing new to add there, just bringing up the original discussion.--Tim Thomason 04:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)